→R. J. Ellory: And again on my talk page. Does anyone want to escalate this to COI or AN/I. I've had enough. |
Roger Ellory (talk | contribs) |
||
Line 416: | Line 416: | ||
Thank you. |
Thank you. |
||
R J Ellory <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Roger Ellory|Roger Ellory]] ([[User talk:Roger Ellory|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Roger Ellory|contribs]]) 18:11, 19 September 2012 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--></blockquote> |
R J Ellory <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Roger Ellory|Roger Ellory]] ([[User talk:Roger Ellory|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Roger Ellory|contribs]]) 18:11, 19 September 2012 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--></blockquote> |
||
Please could you explain to me why certain sections of my biog are permitted to remain and others are not. This biog has been up for many months, and all of a sudden you have decided that some of it is invalid. This is my page, my life, my biog, and you are telling me that it is not valid? I do not understand what you are doing, nor why? |
|||
== Marcia Falkender, Baroness Falkender == |
== Marcia Falkender, Baroness Falkender == |
Revision as of 18:28, 19 September 2012
Welcome – report issues regarding biographies of living persons here. | ||
---|---|---|
This noticeboard is for discussing the application of the biographies of living people (BLP) policy to article content. Please seek to resolve issues on the article talk page first, and only post here if that discussion requires additional input. Do not copy and paste defamatory material here; instead, link to a diff showing the problem.
Additional notes:
| ||
Remove this page and urls to it - Raymond Hoser
NLT --- Collapsed |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Subject: False, defamatory and hate mjaterial about me on wikipedia Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2012 22:26:51 +1030 Please remove the entire page at: Raymond Hoser This material is false, defamatory and incites hatred. Attempts to edit are continually blocked trolls within wikipedia including users Mokele and User:HCA Who have automated settings to revert to lies any pages we try to alter. The webpage also breaches trademarks as does your "snakeman" pages so please remove them as well. As it is not within your ability to publish truth or abide by the laws of trademarks and misleading conduct, please remove the pages forthwith. Furthermore remove the words "Raymond_Hoser" from any and all wikipedia url's including non-English ones. A copy of this e-mail is being sent to my lawyers. Thank you. Snake Man Raymond Hoser Snakebusters - Australia's best reptiles Phones: (Redacted) |
Catherine Chatterley
Re: the supposedly biographical entry on Catherine Chatterley
Catherine D Chatterley (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
The paragraph dealing with the Canadian Museum for Human Rights is polemical and not biographical. One might say that she has been a public defender of the CMHR but to make (unfounded) allegations about the critics of the CMHR and to accuse them of anti-Semitism is unfair, potentially libellous.
A biographical entry should confine itself to facts, not the opinions of the author. Wikipedia should not be promoting dubious and even mendacious texts disguised as biographical notes.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.193.142.54 (talk • contribs)
Klemen Jaklič
More eyes on this, please; we have a user edit-warring to remove his nationality despite clear evidence, and also edit-warring over his name. (It appears in sources both with and without the diacritics, sometimes with one source using both versions; to me, it seems that the version with diacritics is more common and that some of the use of the version without is due to web formatting stuff, but other input would be good.) –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:15, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
- The venice.coe.int document, the only one which mentions his citizenship (the Harvard one doesn't), is a primary source. It is his CV. In other words, he claims Slovenian citzenship, but we have no independent confirmation of that. That is probably because most secondary sources don't consider it relevant. Then neither should we.
- The name, yes, a Google books search does show more entries with the mark over the last 'c.' But there is no BLP issue involved in either usage. The article's talk page is empty, and this should be discussed there. Churn and change (talk) 23:06, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
- Why would we disbelieve him about his own birthplace without any compelling reason to do so? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:49, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
- People often make mistakes in their bio; at times, they lie (plenty of examples at all levels and in all professions); an encyclopedia cannot take information provided by people about themselves at face value. We believe only secondary sources. Of course, they can also make mistakes, and maybe even lie. But with reliable secondary sources such mistakes are presumably rare, and hence the policy of depending on them. Note that WP doesn't explicitly prohibit using self-published sources talking of themselves (see WP:SELFSOURCE); however the moment an editor disputes a claim, you end up with no support from guidelines. If you are adding material, the burden of proof is on you, and WP:SELFSOURCE is only for undisputed material. Churn and change (talk) 05:46, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
- That's completely not how WP works, especially with regard to BLP identification. The word of a random editor does not supersede reliable sources from the subject. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 05:53, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
- WP:SELFSOURCEs are not really reliable sources. They are acceptable in restricted circumstances. True reliable sources are largely secondary sources (and sometimes tertiary sources). In your case the "restricted circumstances" in which WP:SELFSOURCE applies have ceased to hold (there are many conditions listed there—check them). If you believe that is not so, and that the editor's questioning the source's accuracy is not in good faith, take it to dispute resolution. There is no BLP issue in removing the material; there is potentially one in adding it. Churn and change (talk) 06:20, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
- These are exactly the circumstances that allow us to use SELFSOURCEs. It is a source about the subject, contains no extraordinary claims, no claims about third parties, no claims about events unrelated to the subject, is clearly authentic, and is not the main source for the article. As well, there is no BLP issue in using a source written by the subject to write about the subject - if there were an issue, it could be a neutrality issue (say, if the source was self-serving), but there is no issue. Editing under the belief that a random WP user knows more about the subject than the subject himself knows is the BLP issue. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:12, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
- Primary sources are allowed for info about the subject. "I was born in X" is something that is perfectly fine to be backed up by a primary source (Absent any secondary). Whats the issue? Because any opposition to that comes down to 'I dont believe you'. Which isnt how we work. Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:36, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
- WP:SELFSOURCEs are not really reliable sources. They are acceptable in restricted circumstances. True reliable sources are largely secondary sources (and sometimes tertiary sources). In your case the "restricted circumstances" in which WP:SELFSOURCE applies have ceased to hold (there are many conditions listed there—check them). If you believe that is not so, and that the editor's questioning the source's accuracy is not in good faith, take it to dispute resolution. There is no BLP issue in removing the material; there is potentially one in adding it. Churn and change (talk) 06:20, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
- That's completely not how WP works, especially with regard to BLP identification. The word of a random editor does not supersede reliable sources from the subject. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 05:53, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
- People often make mistakes in their bio; at times, they lie (plenty of examples at all levels and in all professions); an encyclopedia cannot take information provided by people about themselves at face value. We believe only secondary sources. Of course, they can also make mistakes, and maybe even lie. But with reliable secondary sources such mistakes are presumably rare, and hence the policy of depending on them. Note that WP doesn't explicitly prohibit using self-published sources talking of themselves (see WP:SELFSOURCE); however the moment an editor disputes a claim, you end up with no support from guidelines. If you are adding material, the burden of proof is on you, and WP:SELFSOURCE is only for undisputed material. Churn and change (talk) 05:46, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
- Why would we disbelieve him about his own birthplace without any compelling reason to do so? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:49, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
No more comments on this? Perhaps that's because it's just obvious that a user's personal opinion is not more reliable about a subject's birthplace and nationality than a source coming from the subject. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:47, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
- With this edit, Mcsngrca claimed that there has been a change of citizenship, and that Jaklic's page at the Venice Commission is out of date. The latter claim might actually be valid, see the current list of individual members without Jaklic. I'd like to see a source though that confirms his changing the citizenship. De728631 (talk) 12:08, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
Frank L. VanderSloot
Edits are being made with justification as follows:
- Your lone objection does not constitute a consensus. The source in question was not discussed on this page prior to now. Furthermore, there was also a second source that I cited (also never discussed here) which you deleted without explanation, along with the accompanying text. If you are debating the reliability of one particular source, than begin a discussion here about it and see if you have consensus to delete it. In the meantime, you have no basis for edit warring over the text in question that refers to the company as an MLM. Furthermore, you hamfistedly deleted other information (such as the text about the DSA) that was completely unrelated to the MLM "issue" (and the source you are questioning) without offering any reason whatsoever. If you have an issue that you think requires any further discussion, then you can state it here and see if it gains any traction. In the meantime, I'll ask you nicely to stop deleting the text, because if you keep doing it, I;ll have to request that you be blocked.
The problem is that the sources include such wonderful expositions of "fact" rather than "opinion" with names like Get-Rich-Quick Profiteers Love Mitt Romney, and He Loves Them which might possibly not be a reliable source for contentious claims of fact, which the other editor does not seem to accept. The BLP was stable from 27 July until this new editor appeared, and I suggest that the discussions n the topic did, in fact, reach a "consensus" and more specifically that it is up to him to get a new consensus if he wshes to make contentious claims using opinion pieces. Cheers. Collect (talk) 00:43, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
- That's a straw man argument -- it's not a contentious claim that the company is a multilevel marketing company. I've cited 4 sources that all refer to it directly as such, and yet for some unfathomable reason, you're using your objection to only one out of those four references as a reason for removing neutral text from the article (i.e. simply referring to the company as an MLM). The company has also long been listed on WPs list of MLM companies (along with an appropriate citation).[1] I wonder how many sources that refer to the company as an MLM would be needed to placate you, as there many available -- even the FTC refers to the company as an MLM. And what "new" consensus are you talking about? There was never an old consensus. And why sarcastically use quotes around words like "wonderful", "facts", and "opinion" to gin up your argument about that one source? That's not being neutral. The lone source you're disputing is Mother Jones magazine;[2] they do excellent investigative journalism and have a respectable reputation, so objecting to the title alone seems like a mighty thin premise. This all looks a bit whitewashy and like WP:OWN to me. Rhode Island Red (talk) 01:47, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
- BTW, did you notice the part at the top of the page where it says you should notify other editors if you talk about them? My invitation must have been lost in the mail eh? Rhode Island Red (talk) 01:55, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
- The post is about the article, not about you, although you do seem to have made an awful lot of edits to it. And I would note that the other editors on that article seem to also dispute your edits, which suggests you do not have WP:CONSENSUS on your side for the stuff you added (including clearly political silly season articles). Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:41, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
- BTW, did you notice the part at the top of the page where it says you should notify other editors if you talk about them? My invitation must have been lost in the mail eh? Rhode Island Red (talk) 01:55, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
The current edit being pushed is:
- VanderSloot, in a newspaper advertisement,[19] devoted several paragraphs to establishing that Peter Zuckerman, a reporter who had written articles about pedophiles being permitted to work with Boy Scouts in the Grand Teton Council,[20] was gay.[21]
Where the [20] is the link to the lost of articles by Zuckerman, and does not mention VanderSloot in any way whatsoever. I suggested the list of Zuckerman's articles belongs in the Zuckerman BLP and was greeted with:
- Despite the overwhelming evidence I presented above,[36] Collect came along today and just decided to delete "MLM" from the article anyway without any further explanation on the talk page.[37] There's a very disturbing pattern of partisanship and WP:OWN on this article, and Collect's latest actions are a stellar example. This doesn't come across well, particularly since several reliable sources have described Vandersloot as been being overly aggressive in his attempts to stifle criticism. He's gone after several journalists and bloggers several times, and when he did, it made national news. It's a sensitive issue, and the optics of a few editors here trying to game the system could generate adverse PR for Vandersloot, so it is completely unacceptable. It could be perceived that they are acting on behalf of Vandersloot, regardless of whether or not they truly are. If these shenanigans continue (such as the earlier vote stacking using SPA/sock puppets and Collect's latest edit), I won't be pussyfooting around and wasting time with WP:3 or WP:DR; it;s a serious enough matter that I will be compelled to take this straight to WP:ArbCom and request that the offending editors be permanently blocked. Rhode Island Red (talk) 14:35, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
Which I consider to be a teensy bit tendentious on his part. Especially the silly claim that I am exerting "ownership" on an article or that I am an SPA. The issue here, however, is whether the Zuckerman list of articles is properly stuffed into the VanderSloot BLP. The editor also inserts such wonderful cites as "Get-Rich-Quick Profiteers Love Mitt Romney, and He Loves Them Back" , Right-Wing Billionaires Behind Mitt Romney and "Pyramid-Like Company Ponies Up $1 Million for Mitt Romney" as sources for claims of fact about VanderSloot and his company. I have the funny feeling that such named articles are opinion pieces <g>. Collect (talk) 16:31, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
- It appears the link to a list of articles has been replaced with a link to the relevant article by Zuckerman. Are there any other outstanding content related concerns? a13ean (talk) 17:47, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
- Are you saying the Zuckerman article refers in any way to VanderSloot? If not, then it is a really bad source for any claims in the BLP on VanderSloot. Meanwhile, I consider the use of "opinion articles" in general to be of dubious value in a BLP. Collect (talk) 22:33, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
- Yes, I said that you’re behavior constitutes WP:OWN and I stand by it. I didn’t say that you were an SPA, I provided specific links to who the 3 SPAs/socks were and you weren’t among them.[3] Not only that, but I already corrected you on this scurrilous charge on the talk page,[4] and yet here you are repeating the same histrionic lie.
- Are you saying the Zuckerman article refers in any way to VanderSloot? If not, then it is a really bad source for any claims in the BLP on VanderSloot. Meanwhile, I consider the use of "opinion articles" in general to be of dubious value in a BLP. Collect (talk) 22:33, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
- Furthermore, despite your claim that I added the following -- “VanderSloot, in a newspaper advertisement,[19] devoted several paragraphs to establishing that Peter Zuckerman, a reporter who had written articles about pedophiles being permitted to work with Boy Scouts in the Grand Teton Council,[20] was gay.[21]”, in reality this has been in the article since at least June without being contested. All I did was identify the reporter by name (Zuckerman)[5] and added the link Zuckerman’s article.[6] The obvious rationale for including the link to Zuckerman’s articles was already explained to you[7] -– Zuckerman’s articles were already mentioned as the focus of Vanderslot’s attack ads, so of course it only makes sense that there is a link to them. Nonetheless, for some unfathomable reason, you unilaterally deleted the link.[8]
- Nor did I insert "Pyramid-Like Company Ponies Up $1 Million for Mitt Romney"; that article, published in Mother Jones (a well respected source) has been linked in the article since May 27 and I didn’t put it there. Not only that but you know full well that I didn’t put it there because you immediately tried to revert the edit back in May when it was first added and you were arguing with the editor who added it,[9] (I didnlt make any edits on the article until a few days ago), and your reversion was undone. Why do you think it’s OK to continually tell lies? And why are you still chafing so about the title “Right-Wing Billionaires” – it’s neutral, it describes Vandersloot to a T (he is a right wing billionaire), and there is no basis for your arbitrary deletion of the link. This too was explained to you already,[10] and yet you didn’t hear it. Your dishonesty truly sucks. Rhode Island Red (talk) 04:33, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
- Deletion required by WP:BLP is not "arbitrary". You added Zuckerman's name and the link to stories which have no relation to VanderSloots's biography. As for your personal attack for continually telling lies I ask you to redact that scurrilous and uncollegial post per WP:NPA. Collect (talk) 12:45, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
- Deletion is certainly not required and merely repeating it over and over again doesn’t make it so. Zuckerman's name and his article have a very obvious relation to Vandersloots's biography. The WP article refers to Vandersloot’s attack ads against the author of the Boy Scout case -- the author was Zuckerman -- so of course it’s warranted to identify him by name and include a link to the article that was the focus of Vandersloot’s attack. As for your other comment, it was not a personal attack but a simple statement of fact, and I made the case to clearly support what I said. So rather than asking me to redact my comment, you should be acknowledging that your charges were erroneous and apologizing for having made false statements about me. Rhode Island Red (talk) 14:51, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
- Deletion required by WP:BLP is not "arbitrary". You added Zuckerman's name and the link to stories which have no relation to VanderSloots's biography. As for your personal attack for continually telling lies I ask you to redact that scurrilous and uncollegial post per WP:NPA. Collect (talk) 12:45, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
- Nor did I insert "Pyramid-Like Company Ponies Up $1 Million for Mitt Romney"; that article, published in Mother Jones (a well respected source) has been linked in the article since May 27 and I didn’t put it there. Not only that but you know full well that I didn’t put it there because you immediately tried to revert the edit back in May when it was first added and you were arguing with the editor who added it,[9] (I didnlt make any edits on the article until a few days ago), and your reversion was undone. Why do you think it’s OK to continually tell lies? And why are you still chafing so about the title “Right-Wing Billionaires” – it’s neutral, it describes Vandersloot to a T (he is a right wing billionaire), and there is no basis for your arbitrary deletion of the link. This too was explained to you already,[10] and yet you didn’t hear it. Your dishonesty truly sucks. Rhode Island Red (talk) 04:33, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
judicial elections
Is this edit [11] proper in a BLP? It appears to me to seek SYNTH in making a sideways allegation that the person has "bought judges". In short, I suggest it may violate BLP both for VanderSloot and for the judges named. Will someone have a closer look please? Collect (talk) 21:01, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
- I'm not clear on what the problem would be. The sources name VanderSloot and the judges. Why wouldn't we do so? And, the article doesn't say anything about Vandersloot buying judges. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 21:19, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
- Can you not read how the edit is worded? Cheers. The section is SYNTH seeking to tie VanderSloot to improper buying of Judges pretty clearly -- and I know of no other BLP where such contributions are so linked. frinstance:
- In 2000, VanderSloot was the primary contributor, donating $50,000, to Concerned Citizens for Family Values for an attack ad campaign against incumbent Idaho Supreme Court Justice Cathy Silak, who was running against Republican challenger Daniel T. Eismann
- Where the source is [12] specifically labelled as editorial commentary, and is not a "news article." In fact the payoff for the editorial is How can anyone expect to get a fair day in court if he goes up against VanderSloot or his company before a judge whose campaign benefited from VanderSloot's support? which I consider likely to be opinion and not fact. [13] is also an editorial with the tagline of If you buy radio stations, who needs attack ads?, [14] also used as a "source" here is not even a "reliable source" at all -- it is a pdf of an ad -- and essentially can only be used to prove the ad exists - but other than that, it is not a source for "fact" in any case. Its use here is strictly in the cause of SYNTH and not in the cause of an encyclopedia BLP. So we are down to the final "source" [15] which manages to have VanderSloot being surprised that a group he gave money to did not comply with all regulations. Not really a lot to hang the entire section about buying of judges on, really! Collect (talk) 01:03, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
- The text of the WP article doesn't say or imply that VanderSloot "bought" judges, so there is nothing that could have been synthesized. It says that he financed ads on behalf of certain candidates. Rhode Island Red (talk) 03:59, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
- While the only "synth" taking place here is happening in Collect's own head, he is correct that these are opinion pieces and so cannot be used for statements of fact (or, rather, can only "rarely" be used in this way, per WP:NEWSORG). So, unless better sources can be found I'd agree that most of this passage should be removed. (No-one would want Fox News commentators to become reliable sources here...) Nomoskedasticity (talk) 07:12, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
- Sure, understood. There are a few good additional sources that address the issues, so with those, a few tweaks, and proper attribution of statements, WP:NEWSORG shouldn't be a problem. Rhode Island Red (talk) 23:32, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
- While the only "synth" taking place here is happening in Collect's own head, he is correct that these are opinion pieces and so cannot be used for statements of fact (or, rather, can only "rarely" be used in this way, per WP:NEWSORG). So, unless better sources can be found I'd agree that most of this passage should be removed. (No-one would want Fox News commentators to become reliable sources here...) Nomoskedasticity (talk) 07:12, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
- The text of the WP article doesn't say or imply that VanderSloot "bought" judges, so there is nothing that could have been synthesized. It says that he financed ads on behalf of certain candidates. Rhode Island Red (talk) 03:59, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
- Can you not read how the edit is worded? Cheers. The section is SYNTH seeking to tie VanderSloot to improper buying of Judges pretty clearly -- and I know of no other BLP where such contributions are so linked. frinstance:
I noticed a level 4 warning to an IP (see User talk:68.250.73.249) followed by a very formal response from that IP complaining about the article and about Cluebot's reversions and warnings. Several highlights:
- "I am writing with regard to the article on Cook County Assessor Joseph Berrios. After reviewing the article posted on Wikipedia we have found that much of the material posted is pejorative at best and most of the cited sources are editorials written by supporters of political rivals."
- "We have also found that large sections of the text on Mr. Berrios’ article page have nothing to do with Mr. Berrios and are indictments of other people some of whom are deceased and cannot object to the material written about them."
- "Please feel free to contact me so we might discuss the options of this office provided through your foundation. We look forward to hearing your response and stand ready to work with you to remedy this problem post haste."
I have not been involved with this article and know nothing of its history, Mr. Berrios or this IP; I just happened to notice the IP talk page.
Looks like a serious issue.--A. B. (talk • contribs) 19:12, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
- (ec) FWIW, I blocked User talk:68.250.73.249 for disruption and edit warring, and not necessarily because I think the material that he was removing shouldn't have been removed. That being said, I think there is a likely conflict of interest (the editor refers to his edits as the actions of "this office") and I agree with A.B. that the attention of some neutral, uninvolved editors on this article would be helpful. -- Ed (Edgar181) 19:26, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
- Conflict of interest, yes, but there are special rules for this in the case of BLP issues; see WP:BLPEDIT. --A. B. (talk • contribs) 19:38, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
- Agree with all the above - I've temporarily semi-d the article to encourage the IPs to discuss rather than keep blanking - I also note that there seems to be some missing sections already, someone may want to get the article cleaned up. I am open to unblocking the most recent IP that I've blocked if they are willing to discuss, any admin can feel free to undo that particular block. – Connormah (talk) 19:43, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
- "most of the cited sources are editorials written by supporters of political rivals" Not true. The article is a fair representation of reliable sources. The article is very well referenced. Every sentence in the article is based on the lede from a reliable source. The main sources are the Chicago Tribune and Sun-Times, and other sources include the newspapers of record in Chicago, as well as Chicgo Magazine and the Chicago Reader, perhaps te 4 most significant print news in Chicago. Editorials where cited are indentified in text as editorials. In this subject preponderance of reliable sources may lead to a non-neutral, negative impression in any conformant wp article. Hugh (talk) 19:58, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
- "large sections of the text on Mr. Berrios’ article page have nothing to do with Mr. Berrios and are indictments of other people some of whom are deceased" The article mentions Mr. Berrios' mentors and predecessors in office by way of providing context to explaining his appointments and elections to office. Hugh (talk) 20:06, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
- Ironicaly, included in the IP's multiple page and section blankings was coverage from reliable sources of formal ethics investigations into the subject of this article and in particular Berrios' use of government resources for personal use, ironic since the IP maps to Cook County's main offices and during normal working hours. Please note that no contact information was provided. Hugh (talk) 20:07, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
- Quoting from our lede (before this material was deleted):
- "Berrios shamelessly hired relatives and friends to government jobs under his control, complemented elected office with a private lobbying practice, used ballot access law to political advantage, and vigorously defended accepting campaign contributions from those doing business with his elected office."
- Quoting from our lede (before this material was deleted):
- Hugh, I thought the rule was that Wikipedia drew no conclusions and expressed no judgements of its own? That's a pretty hard-hitting finding on our part and it was smack in our lede. Am I missing something?
- I don't know if this guy is a good guy or a bad guy. Even Kim Jong-un gets an article that meets our policies (WP:BLP, WP:NPOV, WP:NOR) and I suspect that, whatever your opinions, Mr. Berrios is no Kim Jong-un.
- --A. B. (talk • contribs) 20:09, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
- I don't know if he is good or bad either and don't care. I know what rs sez. I know what the subject sez, the article has many direct quotes from the subject. There's no conclusion, no judgement, no OR. That sentence is in the intro and it is a composite from multiple rs. Is the word shameless over the top? I can find it for you in multiple rs wrt the subject, tho refs are not required in the intro. It is accurate. It is the crux of the notability of the subject, which is the goal of the intro graph. The subject not only hires relatives, divides his time between lobbying and elected office, keeps an election lawyer in his cabinet on the public payroll, and accepts campaign contributions from those doing business with his elected office, but also aggressively and vocally defends his right to do so, in court in person and in the press, which the word shameless was meant to capture. I will remove the word shameless, but I am going to revert to the most recent blanking. Most of the refs are links, please my fellow editors take a few moments to skim a few refs before you form judgements of the neutrality of the POV. thanks. Going forword I ask support from my fellow editors that we take it by cases and invite our IP to be more specific in identifying "large sections" and writing by political opponents and more favorable rs, etc. I say this recognizing this IP will take considerable coaching wrt wp culture, but i've dealt with worse and I'm up for it. thanks. Hugh (talk) 22:03, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
I am writing with regard to the article on Cook County Assessor Joseph Berrios. After reviewing the article posted on Wikipedia I have found that much of the material posted is pejorative at best and most of the cited sources are editorials written by supporters of political rivals. I am extremely concerned that the editing process monitored by ClueBot NG has prevented this office from removing content that in one breath states that Mr. Berrios was the first Hispanic to hold office in the Illinois House then adds a quote from a less that reputable publication and author that negatively describes Mr. Berrios. Such slights and factual inaccuracies are pervasive throughout this article and most of the sources used or cited are editorials, written by individuals who have supported opposing political parties and candidates. I have also found that large sections of the text on Mr. Berrios’ article page have nothing to do with Mr. Berrios and are indictments of other people some of whom are deceased and cannot object to the material written about them.
I understand that monitoring of such a large body of work that is designed to be globally accessible and editable can be difficult and I also understand that the ClueBot NG system is not perfect. Our concern revolves around issues of fairness and accuracy and we hope that we will be able to work with your team to remove the false, derogatory, and in one section raciest tone and content currently posted in the article on Mr. Joseph Berrios.
Mr. Berrios is a public figure and as such, a certain amount of information should be readily available to the public and I am more than happy to provide such information. Our primary concern is that Wikipedia in this case is being bent to push a political agenda and thus the accuracy of much of the information contained in the aforementioned article is without merit and provides the public with a skewed view of Mr. Berrios.
All attempts to remove the derogetory information have been met with undo edits by the same administrator who created the negative posts HughD, even when the artical was placed in protect mode.
Please feel free to contact me so we might discuss the options provided through your foundation. I look forward to hearing your response and stand ready to work with you to remedy this problem post haste. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.23.145.150 (talk) 03:56, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
- It looks like User:Orlady is dealing with the worst problems in the article.
- User:HughD is not a Wikipedia administrator and has not claimed to be one. I am a little surprised that HughD was fortunate enough to escape being blocked for egregious edit warring (to 9RR in around five hours) against the IP and others. WP:BLP concerns are a potential exception to the WP:3RR rule - "I wrote the article!" is not such an exception. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 05:40, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
- This is morphing into a larger conflict over content in articles about Chicago politicians. I'd like some additional eyes on the articles before things escalate.
- After working on Joseph Berrios (where User:Reaper Eternal followed up after I left off), I looked at several other articles about Chicago politicians and family members (mostly articles that HughD had worked on, as Chicago politics seems to be a major interest of his), and I found some other instances of serious BLP concerns -- articles that are largely compilations of accusations and innuendo against the article subjects. There is no disputing that Chicago politics are seriously corrupt, but IMO these articles have been WP:UNDUE. I've excised some content that I found excessively negative for BLPs and I've worked on revising/rewording some content to make it more balanced. However, User:HughD seems to feel strongly that his content is appropriate because it is reliably sourced, so he is restoring the content that I remove.
- The current focus of contention is the article Edward M. Burke and Talk:Edward M. Burke. The article has had section titles like "Attorney in Burke law firm convicted of ghost payrolling on Burke's Finance committee" and "Campaign fund chair accused of running Hired Truck firm as woman-owned business" and text full of details of each incident. Here's some history of the article from the last 2-1/2 days, in chronological order (note that most of the early changes were small; the most recent reverts are the biggest):
- diffs of edits by Orlady; in the middle of this series is one edit by HughD helpfully filled in a ref where I said one was needed
- HugoD diffs]
- Orlady diffs
- HughD diffs
- Orlady diffs
- HughD diffs
- Orlady diffs
- HughD diffs
- diffs of edits by Orlady and a bot
- HughD diffs
- Orlady diffs
- HughD diffs
- Other articles that concern me include Joseph Berrios, where there has been no meaningful talk-page discussion since the page was full-protected; Patrick R. Daley; and (to a lesser degree than the others) John Rice (alderman). --Orlady (talk) 04:56, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
Craig McEwan
My name is craig McEwan and i have never created a Wikipedia page although someone has and put libellous information on it. Could this please be removed ASAP
Thanks Craig McEwan — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.128.248.84 (talk) 08:07, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
- If you were referring to this edit, it's been reverted. Jonathanfu (talk) 08:11, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
Pre-adoption information
Some personal detail about Jessica Long's birthplace and biological parents, which IMHO might be a violation of the privacy provisions of BLP, has recently been added to the biography. An online source in Russian has been cited to support the added material. Firstly can someone fluent in Russian please verify the claims, and secondly we need to consider whether such information should be included in the article at all. Roger (talk) 14:03, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
- Doesn't anyone have anything to say about this? More detail has been added, in bad English, since my post above. Roger (talk) 17:16, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
- Looking at the source via google translate, I'd say the source does verify the claims. I don't see a problem w/rt privacy, myself, at least in principle; I don't mean to endorse every detail of the current version, but the source seems okay and I don't see reason to object to having something about her adoption. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:21, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
dustin rhodes
They have in his personal life that he is married to John Cena as of December 18, 2002..... dont think that is correct — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.15.217.196 (talk) 14:10, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
- Where does it say that? Can you challenge it with a reliable source that says otherwise? Electric Catfish 17:24, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
Nyron Dyer
- Nyron Dyer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Someone claiming to be the subject, editing under both Ndyer2012 (talk · contribs) and 2.25.192.229 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), continues to edit this article, introducing unreferenced information. I have tried explaining WP:RS, WP:V, WP:BLP and WP:AUTOBIO - no luck. I am at 3RR and would like wider eyes please. Oh, and I say "claiming to be the subject" because they seem more concerned with trivial information i.e. correcting a sporting position and height rather than adding information I, personally, would see as more important such as sports club history. Some of the claims added by "Mr. Dyer" are also factually inaccurate i.e. claiming that he played in qualifying matches for the 2010 World Cup - he didn't make his debut until a year after the tournament! GiantSnowman 14:16, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
The individual represented in this article does not appear to meet the required Wikipedia guidelines of 'notability' as to merit the creation of a dedicated article. This article does not appear to be about a singular individual whom has yet to achieve any notable or significantly profound achievements. I presume this articles only function is most likely that of self-promotion.
Review request for Vik Muniz
His wiki page was previously created by his fun but contained inaccurate information, and references without proper citations. Request by Vik, we've edited this page, let us know if the update is appropriate.
- No, it is not. Please read wp:COI and wp:SOCK. LeadSongDog come howl! 00:06, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
Barry Pepper
Barry Pepper (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Not a major thing, but an IP has been adding an unsupported ethnicity to this bio. Not replying to talk page prompts (even these new and very pleasant user talk templates we have now). I'm at 3rr, and they seem persistent. A few more watchers should suffice. (Pepper may well be Jewish, of course. Haven't found anything to support it though). The Interior (Talk) 22:46, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
- Added to my watchlist - ping me if you think I've missed anything. --Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 03:02, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
Being edited by User:Andrew Alfonso Frank ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs), a self-evident wp:COI violation. Some eyes are needed.LeadSongDog come howl! 00:11, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
- Being a COI editor does not actually exclude the figure from editing their own page. Just edting the page IS NOT a violation. More eyes is a very good idea, so that he knows he cannot get away with anything that would be a violation, but just editing in general isn't.--Amadscientist (talk) 19:06, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
- Here is the dif showing the changes he has made [16]. I am not sure that there is anything wrong with these additions but will leave that to others.--Amadscientist (talk) 19:11, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
Maung Zarni
There is a sentence under the education section
He claims[1] to hold a PhD
Linking to http://burmesewithfakephds.blogspot.sg/
The reference of this appears to be one persons personal blog, with a couple of emails that are by no means official documents. I find it hard to believe that one personal opinion is relevant to the biography of this person. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.15.32.163 (talk) 09:50, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
List of Hindus persecuted in Pakistan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and the 3 people named in the list, Asha Kumari, Rinkle Kumari, Lata Kumari appear to be likely BLP violations that probably should go to AfD as failing WP:NOTE. Any other opinions? Dougweller (talk) 13:14, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
I wonder if we need such controversial detail about living people in this article. The article Mike Richards (producer) does not say anything about the lawsuit, yet Bob Barker articles does say much about lawsuits. --George Ho (talk) 15:15, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
Alan Roberts (filmmaker)
From 2009 to 2011 Alan Roberts (filmmaker) was involved in production of a film called Desert Warrior. After the project completed filming, it was revised without knowledge of the participants as the 2012 film Innocence of Muslims. Lines and scenes were edited and altered from a story about "Master George" to a story about Islamic prophet Muhammad that many consider insulting. Some people online are calling for Roberts' death, so I feel his bio and the Innocence of Muslims article should make it perfectly clear that he was not involved in the version currently circulating. "Sam Bacile" has taken credit in 2012 interviews as director of the inflammatory version. BLP is crystal clear on this, and how we describe Roberts' earlier involvement has significant real-world implications for his safety. I'd appreciate if a few other editors keep a watch on the articles on the film and on him. Several editors insist on naming him director of the inflammatory version, but this is nether fair nor accurate. Wikipedia should not be making statements that could put his safety in jeopardy. Jokestress (talk) 23:51, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
- VICE magazine is not RS for biographical claims, and, in fact, does not make claims of his name as "fact." The material purporting to give his "real name" is thus improper under WP:BLP especially considering te contentious nature of the claims. There is no reliable source given for him seeking anything inflammatory, thus such claims are not allowed by WP:BLP Collect (talk) 00:38, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
Barry Sanders
Article seems unreliable. It says he resides in West Bloomfield, MI. A few sentences later, it says he lives in Oklahoma City. Huh? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.11.209.168 (talk) 01:52, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
- The unsourced information has been removed. Morbidthoughts (talk) 20:18, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
Simon Zadek
- Simon Zadek (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
The individual represented in this article does not appear to meet the required Wikipedia guidelines of 'notability' as to merit the creation of a dedicated article. This article does not appear to be about a singular individual whom has yet to achieve any notable or significantly profound achievements. I presume this articles only function is most likely that of self-promotion. Also note the long list of publications he has placed...his website...seems like an ad for his consultancy — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tommacao (talk • contribs) 09:40, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
I have added a notability flag to this article, may go further depending on how things work out. PatGallacher (talk) 01:03, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
Heritage Internet Technologies
I stumbled across what appears to be a credible complaint made at Talk:Heritage Internet Technologies#Vandalism of malicious, libelous editing. I don't have time now to do it myself but someone should investigate it.
--A. B. (talk • contribs) 17:24, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
- I have semi-protected Heritage Internet Technologies for one week. --A. B. (talk • contribs) 17:33, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
I've got some history with one of the editors involved, so I think it would be more productive to bring it here. I saw this on the AfD discussions (it is hard to miss), and it seems to be heading into some rather nasty BLP territory, especially in regard to another editor. Could well do with some neutral eyes. - Bilby (talk) 00:54, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
- Yes. That AfD needs a couple of editors to just shut up. I dropped a note on Qworty's talk page asking them to refrain; asking the other editor is probably useless but I'll do it anyway. I'm loath to delete this speedily , though spammy it surely is, and the COI is pretty clear as well. I looked at an older version and find no reliable sources there--but this AfD might as well run its course, and if it ends in delete I have no problem salting it. We can figure out how to deal with the promoter later. Drmies (talk) 03:55, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
- Actually, someone with some experience with WP:OUTING should look at what's going on there. Especially toward the end I'm wondering if this is still OK. Drmies (talk) 04:23, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
- Yikes. Getting very close to outing, although there has been some disclosure also. All in all, not an example of how to do an AfD. The Interior (Talk) 07:06, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
I have deleted the offending material which amounted to outing, had a look at WP:RFO, bit complicated, if anyone wants to take this further by going for suppression feel free to do so. PatGallacher (talk) 11:07, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks to both of you. The sooner that AfD closes the better. The Interior, it's par for the course: an AfD with a COI (thus a lack of AGF following by violations of NPA, hopefully not leading to ANI) often spells FUBAR. TTYL, Drmies (talk) 14:39, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
- It's an AWOL SNAFU, IMHO, but YMMV. FFS, you use a lot of acronyms Drmies. The Interior (Talk) 16:08, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
Soledad O'Brien
Recent edit appears to rely heavily on blogs and non-neutral sources [17]. The appearance is that a non-neutral user, with the purported agenda of amending a perceived liberal bias, is constructing a controversy section from a mixed bag of references. 76.248.149.47 (talk) 01:52, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
- So it is your assertion that a user must be neutral in order to participate in Wikipedia? Silly me, I thought it was our contributions to Wikipedia that were required to be neutral. Perhaps you can point me to the policy which requires that Wikipedia users think and feel "neutral"? Bobinisrael (talk) 05:44, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
- ...and in the process, violating WP:BLP policy on the talk page - see the not-really-very-NPOV-named Talk:Soledad O'Brien#Transparently leftist bias on Wikipedia... AGAIN. section. And yes, it's User:Bobinisrael at it again... AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:27, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
- Troublesome, per this talk page section [18], in contrast to the article, which looks pretty decent, and even-handedly cites charges of bias from both sides. In the rush to take offense numerous articles, editors, and subjects of biographies are being pilloried. 76.248.149.47 (talk) 02:33, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
- Yes, it's quite "troublesome" that a user is here to challenge the dominant leftist bias of Wikipedia. Not as troublesome as completely vandalising an article and deleting an entire section filled with legitimate sources derided as "conservative blogs". Breitbart.com, Dailycaller.com, Humanevents.com, Huffingtonpost.com, PBS.com, Mediaite.com, Theblaze.com, Nationalreview.com, Townhall.com, and Washingtonpost.com, and Redstate.com are all legitimate news sources. Bobinisrael (talk) 04:21, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
- Troublesome, per this talk page section [18], in contrast to the article, which looks pretty decent, and even-handedly cites charges of bias from both sides. In the rush to take offense numerous articles, editors, and subjects of biographies are being pilloried. 76.248.149.47 (talk) 02:33, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
- Excuse me, The Four Deuces, please point of specifically where my edit to the Soledad O'Brien article violates current policy.Bobinisrael (talk) 05:46, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
Maybe some of you are also interested in spirituality. Perhaps you'd like to have a look at the complaint on the talk page linked above, where a problem with Lisa Miller (parapsychologist) is signaled. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 03:43, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
- I've moved it to Lisa Miller (psychologist), see talk. Fences&Windows 09:38, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
Vandalism of the Soledad O'Brien biography page.
I have added a paragraph to the "Controversies" section of her page, originating from an exchange she had with Joel Pollak on her show. AndyTheGrump has vandalised the page by completely deleting the section, while deriding the sources I've used to cite facts as non-neutral. The facts are not in dispute. I have warned him not to vandalise the article again, but predictably he has. The sources used to cite the facts and opinions were Breitbart.com, Mediaite.com, Dailycaller.com, Theblaze.com, Washingtonpost.com, PBS.com, Humanevents.com, Huffingtonpost.com, Townhall.com, Nationalreview.com, and Redstate.com. It should also be noted that opinions regarding critical race theory rejecting Soledad O'Brien's false characterisation of it (the core of the controversy) come primarily from two lawyers who graduated from Harvard Law. Bobinisrael (talk) 05:24, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
- Will someone please explain to this halfwit how WP:BRD works, what WP:VANDAL says, and why we aren't interested in his bullshit. His entire brief editing history consists of nothing but a string of attacks on the integrity of Wikipedia contributors, along with a crusade against a 'leftist bias' that apparently includes everyone on the planet... AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:31, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
- In other words, you cannot address a single problem with the entire paragraph you continue to delete. If you have a specific point to make, make it. Since you don't, however, you just continually vandalise the article despite it being diligently written in an NPOV manner with legitimate sources. You can have a problem with my demeanour and candour, I'm not here to make friends. What you cannot do, however, is vandalise articles because you have a personal grudge against me. Either raise specific issues about the paragraph I composed, dispute facts and opinions that are sources, or cease and desist from your continuing vandalism. Whining about my dissenting political orientation DOES NOT justify vandalism. Bobinisrael (talk) 05:37, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
- Go boil your head. AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:47, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
- In other words, you cannot address a single problem with the entire paragraph you continue to delete. If you have a specific point to make, make it. Since you don't, however, you just continually vandalise the article despite it being diligently written in an NPOV manner with legitimate sources. You can have a problem with my demeanour and candour, I'm not here to make friends. What you cannot do, however, is vandalise articles because you have a personal grudge against me. Either raise specific issues about the paragraph I composed, dispute facts and opinions that are sources, or cease and desist from your continuing vandalism. Whining about my dissenting political orientation DOES NOT justify vandalism. Bobinisrael (talk) 05:37, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
- To whom it may concern, I composed the paragraph in question in the same manner as this paragraph. I am confident that an honest review of these paragraphs will instantly reveal that they are well-written while closely adhering to all relevant Wikipedia guidelines and polices. The composition of both paragraphs is NPOV, the facts are not in dispute (the actual relevant videos are sourced), and the analysis of the subject matter at the core of the controversy regarding Soledad O'Brien, critical race theory, primarily comes from two folks who are qualified to do so. Cheers. Bobinisrael (talk) 06:25, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
- Whatever the merits, Bob's wandering into 3RR territory.[19] I also find it funny there's a reference to an "edit war" back in March, which there was some apparent new accounts and IPs coming in, although it was hardly a notable edit war by the standards of many political/news person articles. If there's consensus for a criticism section then a smaller version of that issue would seem to be relevant, however the treatment given it by bob seems to violate WP:UNDUE as is.
- Basic advice about Wikipedia:Criticism should be noted here. Discussion of it in the article is relevant, but it's pretty obvious why Bob's POV pushing ended up here. Shadowjams (talk) 06:51, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
- You realise the reference to the Wikipedia edit war that occurred after Pollak's appearance on O'Brien's show is the least important sentence of the entire paragraph, right? If you think there's undue weight given to that entire ONE SENTENCE which is cited and described as such by a legitimate source, then please try to substantiate your statement by comparing this event to other edit wars that arose under similar circumstances. Otherwise, the sentence should remain. More importantly, the persistent deletion of the entire paragraph without ANY specific criticisms constitutes vandalism. You can't just throw around Wikipedia policy acronyms to justify deletions of entire sections without specifically connecting them to a grievance with either the way the content is composed (and I composed it in a perfectly NPOV, which is evident) or the sources cited (all are reliable sources). Of course, AndyTheGrump and his sidekick 76.248.149.47 have not done either. Bobinisrael (talk) 07:10, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
- It's not "POV pushing", it's a desire to add an entirely relevant controversy to a media personality's page that is conspicuously absent. I am not obligated to pretend to be "neutral" in talk pages, what matters is whether or not the content I contribute to the body of an article complies with Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Unlike many others on Wikipedia, I do not feel compelled to maintain a false veneer of "neutrality" (which doesn't exist, anyways) about who I am. My contributions to articles, on the other hand, are NPOV and compliant with Wikipedia guidelines and policies. Nobody has yet to provide any specific justifications for the deletion of the paragraph demonstrating where either the composition of the paragraph or cited articles violate any Wikipedia guidelines or policies. The real POV pushing is coming from those who wish to cleanse the article of this controversy, while cynically projecting their own motives onto me.Bobinisrael (talk) 07:23, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
- You don't have to be neutral, only your edits. For the record, I don't think your edits are "vandalism" by any stretch, nor do I think it's appropriate to call the removal vandalism either. It's more like a low-grade edit war. My undue comment applied to the point as a whole, not to the edit warring part, that was more of a curious aside. I should have made that more clear.
- It's not "POV pushing", it's a desire to add an entirely relevant controversy to a media personality's page that is conspicuously absent. I am not obligated to pretend to be "neutral" in talk pages, what matters is whether or not the content I contribute to the body of an article complies with Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Unlike many others on Wikipedia, I do not feel compelled to maintain a false veneer of "neutrality" (which doesn't exist, anyways) about who I am. My contributions to articles, on the other hand, are NPOV and compliant with Wikipedia guidelines and policies. Nobody has yet to provide any specific justifications for the deletion of the paragraph demonstrating where either the composition of the paragraph or cited articles violate any Wikipedia guidelines or policies. The real POV pushing is coming from those who wish to cleanse the article of this controversy, while cynically projecting their own motives onto me.Bobinisrael (talk) 07:23, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
- Anyway, like I said bob, I think if the criticism section is to stand, some coverage by the National Review (I didn't check if it was just the blog or the magazine... that distinction probably matters as far as RS goes) suggests there might be something there worthy of some small inclusion. But that paragraph outshadows everything else in that section, and many of those sources are to political blogs. Make your argument on the basis of reliable sources and notability. This discussion about personalities doesn't help reach consensus.
- The paragraph DOES NOT overshadow everything else in that exception, outside of it being much better written and sourced. It is not any longer than the other two segment under the same section. NONE of the sources I cited are simply "political blogs", they ALL have editorial oversight. Bobinisrael (talk) 14:25, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
- Anyway, like I said bob, I think if the criticism section is to stand, some coverage by the National Review (I didn't check if it was just the blog or the magazine... that distinction probably matters as far as RS goes) suggests there might be something there worthy of some small inclusion. But that paragraph outshadows everything else in that section, and many of those sources are to political blogs. Make your argument on the basis of reliable sources and notability. This discussion about personalities doesn't help reach consensus.
- Should I mention I've never edited that article (unless it was run of the mill vandalism reversal... i haven't checked. certainly I haven't recently). Shadowjams (talk) 08:43, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
- Also, the "edit warring" doesn't bother me that much, at least not at the level it's at right now. I'm not a stickler for 3RR, but that also assumes some attempt to engage. I know there are talk page discussions going on, but they don't seem to be going very far towards consensus, which if we want to have any semblance of order on politically charged topics, is critical. Shadowjams (talk) 08:46, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
- There is no point in me undoing the vandalism from AndyTheGrump, since he will only vandalise the article again unless he is warned by some sort of administrator not to do so. That is why I am here, to solicit the assistance of an administrator to compel compel AndyTheGrump to cease and desist with his vandalism. Otherwise, this is an entirely fruitless endeavour. There is nothing controversial here, I composed a high quality segment written in line with all relevant guidelines and policies and it is being deleted by another person committed to vandalism. Bobinisrael (talk) 14:25, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
- Also, the "edit warring" doesn't bother me that much, at least not at the level it's at right now. I'm not a stickler for 3RR, but that also assumes some attempt to engage. I know there are talk page discussions going on, but they don't seem to be going very far towards consensus, which if we want to have any semblance of order on politically charged topics, is critical. Shadowjams (talk) 08:46, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
- Should I mention I've never edited that article (unless it was run of the mill vandalism reversal... i haven't checked. certainly I haven't recently). Shadowjams (talk) 08:43, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
- Bob, I suggest you read Wikipedia:Bombardment, and I also suggest you stop descriving other editors who have a different opinion to you as "vandals." I suggest you both use the article talk page to discuss content disputes. GiantSnowman 14:33, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
- If you have something specific to say, then say it. Clearly demonstrate where I engaged in bombardment. If you can't do that, you're throwing around allegations that I am violating Wikipedia guidelines by invoking each one you can remember and hoping one of them will stick. The fact with the most references supplied was that Soledad O'Brien was criticised for mischaracterising critical race theory, and the source WERE NOT redundant. Up to this point, not ONE person has demonstrate any clear reason why ANY part of the segment I composed should be deleted, let alone the entire paragraph. I have seen other comments you have made about me, and you are not here to assist in improving the quality of the article, rather to join in with your ideological allies to assist in silencing me. Bobinisrael (talk) 15:08, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
- With this edit you added 7 refs in a row - that is the bombardment I talk about. Did you even read the essay I linked you to? GiantSnowman 15:14, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
- From the Wikipedia policy of bombardment - "Adding additional references is good when each source has a lot of information of its own. Since one of the purposes of references is to provide the reader information beyond what the Wikipedia article says, providing more sources of information is a good thing. Use of the same source to verify different information in different parts of an article may be necessary.". Even if part of my edit did constitute bombardment (and it most certainly does not), you need to be specific. Which sources have I used that are redundant? Moreover, how does that justify deletion of the entire segment? If you were honest, you'd be chastising AndyTheGrump and the rest of my entourage of detractors for unjustifiably deleting an entire segment with nonsensical invocations of Wikipedia policies that have STILL not be specifically and appropriately connected to any component of my contribution. Anyways, it is clearly a waste of time continuing down this path with the rest of you, I find an administrator to have a look at this and make an honest judgment. Bobinisrael (talk) 15:37, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
- I like the 'ideological allies' business, as well as being referred to as another account's 'sidekick'. The conspiracies multiply..... 76.248.149.47 (talk) 15:20, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
- It makes a nice change from accusations of "leftist agenda." GiantSnowman 15:24, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
- Should we tell him that we're sitting around an artificial wood fire at Starbucks, dressed in LLBean outerwear and plotting the demise of venture capitalism? 76.248.149.47 (talk) 15:30, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
- It makes a nice change from accusations of "leftist agenda." GiantSnowman 15:24, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
- With this edit you added 7 refs in a row - that is the bombardment I talk about. Did you even read the essay I linked you to? GiantSnowman 15:14, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
- If you have something specific to say, then say it. Clearly demonstrate where I engaged in bombardment. If you can't do that, you're throwing around allegations that I am violating Wikipedia guidelines by invoking each one you can remember and hoping one of them will stick. The fact with the most references supplied was that Soledad O'Brien was criticised for mischaracterising critical race theory, and the source WERE NOT redundant. Up to this point, not ONE person has demonstrate any clear reason why ANY part of the segment I composed should be deleted, let alone the entire paragraph. I have seen other comments you have made about me, and you are not here to assist in improving the quality of the article, rather to join in with your ideological allies to assist in silencing me. Bobinisrael (talk) 15:08, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
R. J. Ellory
R. J. Ellory (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
A few weeks back, articles were published in the Daily Telegraph and the New York Times, accusing author R. J. Ellory of faking glowing reviews of his own work (allegedly using sockpuppets) whilst belittling that of certain "rivals". Reference has since been made to the Daily Telegraph article and external links were added to both articles.
Since that time, there has been a slow tag-team content dispute between various editors and one registered user and two pretty static or static IPs. This involves alternate, similar and unexplained blanking by these three editors and restoration, talk page advice and talk page warnings by various other editors:
Accounts:
Roger Ellory (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · Spamcheck · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam)
77.100.46.44 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)
94.11.171.216 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)
A few hours ago (last night, UK time), one of the editors left a message on my talk page:
"I do not understand what is happening here. Potentially libellous statements regarding myself and my work are being left on my wikipedia page, and I cannot remove them. This is grossly unfair, unjust and biased. Simply because an article appears in a newspaper does not make it true. Please could you assist me in resolving this issue. Many thank. R J Ellory. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.11.171.216 (talk) 20:58, 17 September 2012 (UTC) "
I was about to add a section title to the message but there was an edit conflict and the page now contains a duplicate of the above message, again unsigned, but made according to the talk page history, by Roger Ellory (talk · contribs). There have also been gentle words of advice about possible conflict of interest and blp policy in general.
My advice was to use the edit summary; to use the article's talk page and, if he had a grievance, to take the matter to this BLP noticeboard. I have added a blp sources template to the top of the article and added a disputed section template above the allegedly offending material. I have also removed the Daily Telegraph from external links, as this is already referenced and linked to in the article body (I thought this to be overkill). Perhaps the external link to the New York Times might also either be used in the article or else removed from external links?
I have also opened this issue here and will inform users of this entry. All help gratefully received in resolving this issue.
Regards, Esowteric+Talk 08:32, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
- As far as I can see, this was a widely reported story, and he is reported in multiple papers to have publicly apologised for his behaviour: [20] We need clarification what exactly is libellous or unfair about the content. JN466 10:43, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
- As shown above, it's been very widely reported and well-sourced, including pieces in The Guardian, The New York Times, and The Daily Telegraph. He admits he did it and he's apologized. Then he comes here and tries to vandalize the information out of the article. He has been editing his article for a long time, even before this, as shown here [21]. I don't understand why he would admit to what he did before the entire world, and at the same time try to have it scrubbed from Wikipedia. But if he sincerely believes there is anything inaccurate in how it is presented here, we should absolutely follow WP:BLP and listen to what he has to say. Until such time, given the very strong sourcing, I don't think any changes should be made. Qworty (talk) 22:19, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
- Well, one thing is he apologised, and we should make sure his apology is just as prominent here in Wikipedia as it is in the press reports (the version I looked at didn't mention the apology at all, but instead went into a lot of detail about what he had posted). JN466 01:45, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
September 19: We now have another IP reinstating material deleted from the personal life section, without explanation. See 94.11.177.9 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot). Regards, Esowteric+Talk 09:57, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
Received on my talk page just a few minutes ago:
"I am very unfamiliar with how this works, certainly as far as sending messages is concerned. I do not even know who I am talking to! I noticed this morning that two pararaphs of my 'Perosnal Life' section had been removed. Who removes these things, and why? As far as this dispute is concerned, there is a significant matter of misrepresentation in the press regarding the extent to which I had manufactured 'reviews' on amazon. Simply put, this entire issue was blown out of all proportion, and I have been treated most unjustly. However, I appreciate that you have noted that there is a dispute on this issue. My concern, as is also happening with reviews left on amazon itself, is that those reading my wikipedia page and recent amazon reviews are being given one side of the story, much of it false, and there is nothing I can do to address this matter. Were the truth ever to come out regarding this issue, I guarantee that it would receive no press coverage at all. People assume that what they read in the newspapers and on the internet is true, whereas it is often biased, invested with ulterior motive, and semi-factual. I would please ask you to leave the paragraphs in as they are on my 'Personal Life' section, unless there is some issue with this. And please could you tell me who you are, and why you are in control of what does and does not go on my wikipedia page? Also, who posted that photograph of me, and how do I get rid of it or change it? Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Roger Ellory (talk • contribs) 10:04, 19 September 2012 (UTC)"
I'm not in charge here, Roger: I'm just another hack/editor. You have a genuine grievance and asked for help, so I opened up this discussion on your behalf. The banners across the top of the article clearly explain what the issues are with the article content.
Recent changes were made not by me but by Qworty (talk · contribs). The photo was added by Jean-Jacques Georges (talk · contribs). See my reply to your message, which explains how to view article revision history (who made edits, why and when), and please respond here, rather than on my talk page. Regards, Esowteric+Talk 10:13, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
Again, from my talk page:
The facts are very simple, and - as you say - I have publicly apologised for this. Over a span of ten years, ten reviews were left on amazon, either self-penned or penned by a family member, one for each book I have published to date. Two negative reviews were left by me, and only two. The newspaper reports have created the apparency that I had used multiple false names and accounts to post 'dozens, if not hundreds' of reviews. This is entirely false, and can be validated by amazon. As of the beginning of September 2012, there were no self-penned or family-written reviews of my own works on amazon, nor are the two negative reviews I left still present. These were all removed by me, or removed by amazon at my request. Every review of my books on amazon has been written by someone other than me or a family member. The messages left on amazon that 'every review of my books is false', or 'there are hundreds of fake reviews on amazon' is blatanly untrue and libellous, and I feel that the wording of the 'Controversy' paragraph and the attachment of newspaper links give completely the wrong bias on this issue. I am sorry to inconvenience you with this, but this is an important issue, and I feel that I am being misprepresented, not by what is being said on wikipedia, but by what is not being said. The simple fact that such a practice is pandemic across amazon and many, many other websites where reviews can be posted is beside the point. I was accused of this, admitted to it, apologised for it, and yet was subjected to a relentless character assassination in the world's press, and as far as I am concerned, the reaction was disproportionate to the crime. I am not trying to make excuses or justify this, but it had been an enormously difficult thing to deal with, and I am doing all I can to rescue my career and dignity out of this fiasco.
Thank you for your time, nevertheless, and I hope we can work this out.
R J Ellory. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Roger Ellory (talk • contribs) 11:26, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
OK, let's try changing the Controversy section template from facts disputed -> unbalanced. Have made a start by quoting Ellory's apology in the Daily Telegraph, but more is needed to achieve balance. Now that an editor has rightly removed unsourced material from Personal life, the controversy section appears to have undue weight. Esowteric+Talk 11:32, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
- I removed that section, as thoroughly unsourced. Are there no sources available that will help us fill in some biographical detail about this person? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 12:56, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
- Will see if I can rustle up some citations, starting with his awards ... pause ... Well, I found plenty of citations for Ellory's works and awards. But when it comes to his personal life, there's a chasm. He needs to learn how to feed reviewers and interviewers with material that can later be quoted as reliable sources. Esowteric+Talk 13:09, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
Again on my talkpage:
"Once again, two paragraphs of my biog have been removed from my wikipedia page. Please could you tell me who keeps doing this, and why? I have replaced them, yet again, and I really would apprciate it if they could remain there. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Roger Ellory (talk • contribs) 16:43, 19 September 2012 (UTC) "
Can someone -- anyone -- please try to establish two way conversation with Roger Ellory (talk · contribs)? I keep getting messages which suggest that previous replies have not been seen or understood, and I'm getting no response to any replies I make. This is rather frustrating. Esowteric+Talk 16:54, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
And again on my talk page. Does anyone want to escalate this to COI or AN/I. I've had enough:
So, am I not a reliable source about my own life? That biog has been there for a long, long time and - all of a sudden - it's been questioned as credible when I wrote it? I don't understand this at all. How do I speak to the person who is making these changes? I really don't understand the wikipedia protocol, nor your instructions about how to make changes. Please can you tell this person who is removing my biog that I am the most reliable source there is when it comes to my own life, and can he please stop deleting this.
Thank you.
R J Ellory — Preceding unsigned comment added by Roger Ellory (talk • contribs) 18:11, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
Please could you explain to me why certain sections of my biog are permitted to remain and others are not. This biog has been up for many months, and all of a sudden you have decided that some of it is invalid. This is my page, my life, my biog, and you are telling me that it is not valid? I do not understand what you are doing, nor why?
Marcia Falkender, Baroness Falkender
An edit war (slow but sustained over years) about Marcia Falkender, Baroness Falkender includes edits apparently made by or on behalf of the subject herself, removing allegedly defamatory (but sourced) content. There is a risk either that defamatory content remains in the article history (if the removed material is indeed inaccurate); or that conflicts of interest affect WP:NPOV (if the removed material was in fact accurate). — Richardguk (talk) 13:20, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
- Many of the changes refer to libelous material, like this one: [22] that specifically refers to previous litigation in the UK over the material. I think this needs to be taken to WP:ANI immediately per WP:NLT. – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 19:04, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
- IP notified. GiantSnowman 19:46, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
- I don't think the historical position is settled on the allegations, and we should report on the controversy. They are still written about and debated. I would find it a bizzare situation if the "Lavender List" allegations could be written about by reliable sources, yet the debate not covered on Wikipedia. Gareth E Kegg (talk) 17:52, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
- IP notified. GiantSnowman 19:46, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
Tim Blixseth
In the article several people are linked to the following comment under; Litigation, bankruptcies and defaults, http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tim_Blixseth&diff=513404319&oldid=513404017 Changes has been made but not to satisfaction. Although some might be true, this still reads as if all parties are a part of the above. Which is simply not true and certainly defamatory. I have tried to edit but to no avail.
Best regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ptinitin (talk • contribs) 21:24, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
- I just took a quick glance at the article and dont have time to do any deep dive now, but it looks like there are some serious issues that need to be addressed here if anyone has the time. -- The Red Pen of Doom 22:05, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
Ankit Fadia
Ankit Fadia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Previously reported here, looks like a lot of the material that was removed has been restored to the article. I've just removed a link to a Facebook page called "We Hate Ankit Fadia" from the article, this Facebook page links back to the Wikipedia article so that's probably what's bringing the subject's opponents to it. January (talk) 15:06, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
Fathali Oveisi
All information posted about this Iranian actor (Fathali Oveisi) are false. I am part of this actors immediate family and find this a mockery of him. From his name, to his birthplace, to his parents, family and career - the whole thing is false. I have tried deleting this before but whoever has posted this keeps reposting it so I would appreciate if this false biography would be deleted. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.232.249.114 (talk) 15:51, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
- Regardless of whether such information is false or not, there is no reliable source cited. The only 'source' given is a link to IMDb, which doesn't meet out reliability criteria, and it is thus questionable whether the actor meets our criteria for notability. I'll look into this, and if I can't find proper sources to justify the article, move it for deletion. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:11, 19 September 2012 (UTC)